It seems that Auckland Transport have found a use for the large medians they so often like to include in road projects, another lane. They announced on Friday that they would be trialling what they call a Dynamic Lane Control system on Whangaparaoa Road.

Dynamic Lane Control, uses the existing road more efficiently for moving people and goods. It is a travel solution which makes use of Traffic Control Devices and an adaptive LED light system instead of traditional painted on-road markings.

LED lights show road markings that can change configuration quickly and safely, creating an extra lane during peak hour traffic. Traffic control gantries will clearly display which lanes motorist are to use.

Around the world different kinds of Dynamic Lane Controls have been used to get traffic moving at peak times. In Auckland similar arrangements operate on the Panmure Bridge and Auckland Harbour Bridge.

Dynamic lanes are relatively quick to build and cost effective compared to road widening. They allow for the better use of existing road space, accommodate peak period movements and reduce the need to widen roads or build new roads.

AT has been investigating the concept of dynamic lanes on road corridors since 2014. Following a driver behaviour study conducted with the University of Waikato, AT is now aiming to do a full scale trial in the second half of this year.

Whangaparaoa Road, between Hibiscus Coast Highway and Red Beach Road has been selected for the trial, as the road has two lanes with a wide central flush median equivalent to a third lane. This stretch of road has pronounced tidal traffic movements during weekday peak periods. The installation of dynamic lane controls along Whangaparaoa Road would also require relatively low use of surrounding land, which will minimise disruption to residents.

Andrew Allen, Auckland Transport General Manager of Transport Services says “We are currently finalising our investigation and design of an appropriate system to be tested on Whangaparaoa Road. Rest assured that the safety and convenience of the local community will be a key priority for this trial and affected members of the community will be consulted with.”

The results of the trial will determine the suitability and best approach to potentially introducing the controls along Whangaparaoa Road as a permanent feature as well as its suitability in other parts of Auckland.

Some impressions of how it would work are below.

It’s not the first I’ve heard of the idea after AT conducted some online consultation on designs for this some months ago.

On the surface it seems like a good idea. It obviously saves AT from having to expensively widen roads which is good as they don’t have unlimited funds but I can also see a number of potential downsides too, especially if used in other locations like AT say they want to consider. So here are a few thoughts I’ve had about the idea.

This section of Whangaparaoa Rd is fairly unique in that it doesn’t have a lot of development either side of it and is unlikely to in the future unless there are significant zoning changes. The section in question is shown in red below

If there are two lanes of busy traffic and no-where to wait safely, how will people get across the road – say to catch a bus. This could be a huge issue in other, more developed parts of Auckland. We’ve seen in the past the inclusion of medians as being justified on the bases that it also provides a refuge for pedestrians.

If the idea is used elsewhere, especially in places close to centres, this could also impact on bike lanes or bus lanes.

If AT are adding extra lanes through this method, perhaps they should be for the exclusive use of buses and high occupancy vehicles.

In this case specifically, what happens when traffic gets to Hibiscus Coast Highway? I assume that HCH is already pretty full in the mornings and opening up another traffic lane might address the Whangaparaoa Rd volumes at the expense of everyone else who uses Hibiscus Coast Highway.

AT have said in the past that widening this section of road is a key alternative to Penlink. Given how expensive Penlink is, delaying it would be a positive outcome.

Do you think this is an appropriate idea and where else do you think it could be trialled?

Instead of just measuring traffic volumes, AT use a measurement called Arterial Road Productivity which is a based on how many vehicles, how fast they’re travelling and how many people they have in them. To me this seems like a very bad metric primary because it only seems to count people in vehicles. It could also be interpreted as encouraging bigger and faster roads as a way of improving the metric which goes against many of the city’s wider goals. In saying that another way to improve the result could be improving vehicle occupancy so therefore bus lanes which speed up buses carrying more people will improve productivity. Regardless it seems that AT is performing quite well and is above target.

The second metric is AM Peak Arterial Road Level of Service and as you can see even then around 80% of arterials aren’t considered congested.

The next set of charts look at how a number of key freight routes are performing. For each of these routes AT have a target for how long it should take to travel. As you can see for almost all of the routes the target has been at least met and some such as on Kaka St/James Fletcher Dr/Favona Rd/Walmsley Rd the target has been significantly exceeded. If the results here are indicative of other parts of the road network then they certainly don’t support calls from the freight industry for significant projects such as the East-West link.

Parking obviously plays a big role in transport and AT measure occupancy rates for both on street and off street carparks. On street parks are only measured quarterly and the result is based on top four busiest hours of the day at each of the three sites around the city centre. The last survey occurred in August and as you can see at the upper level of AT’s target. This suggests there’s possibly room to increase prices to better manage demand.

Occupancy at AT’s off street carparks have dropped quite a bit recently which is almost certainly attributed to the change in parking prices at the beginning of August.

One area that isn’t looking great is road safety with the number of deaths and injuries 6% above target.

While AT don’t publish monthly traffic volumes, the NZTA does for some selected state highways. The one we look at closest is the Harbour Bridge which is currently experiencing a growth rate of around 1% p.a. Compared to the other state highways that the NZTA publish this appears incredibly low as most are experiencing growth of around 5% annually – although off a lower base.

Overall – with the exception of road safety – it seems that our local roads are not performing too badly.

Auckland Transport have announced that they will spend $58 million to widen a 4km section of Albany Highway starting in September. The road is an interesting one in that some parts look like a typical suburban street while other parts don’t appear to have really changed since the road was a state highway. Here’s the press release:

Auckland Transport’s greatly anticipated upgrade of the northern section of Albany Highway is expected to begin this September.

The $58 million construction of the Albany Highway North upgrade involves widening a 4km stretch of the highway between Schnapper Rock Road and the Albany Expressway to accommodate four lanes of traffic and separated cycling and walking paths. The main aims are to cater for traffic growth, reduce congestion, improve safety for all road users and encourage alternative modes of transport, such as bus travel, cycling and carpooling.

About 15,000 vehicles, as well as cyclists and pedestrians, use Albany Highway every day, and it also serves the North Harbour industrial estate, five schools, Massey University and a cluster of residential estates.

The announcement is welcomed by the Upper Harbour Local Board, which says many locals are looking forward to the benefits the completed upgrade will bring to those living, working and commuting in the area.

“The local community – and in particular its 5,000 school students – can only benefit from improvements aimed at delivering safer and quicker travel options as this area of Auckland continues to grow,” says board chairman Brian Neeson.

The NZ Transport Agency is funding 53 per cent of the upgrade, which together with the agency’s current project to upgrade SH1 between Upper Harbour Highway and Greville Road, is part of a wider strategy to improve transport links on the North Shore.

The Transport Agency’s Regional Manager of Planning and Investment, Peter Casey, says: “This is a priority investment for the Transport Agency to help ease congestion and provide more reliable journey times for people in a very busy and growing part of Auckland”.

Features of the Albany Highway North Upgrade:

Four traffic lanes (with two general traffic and T3 transit lanes)

Signalisation of three major intersections (currently roundabouts) at Rosedale Road, Bass Road and Wharf Road

Signalised pedestrian crossings and wider footpaths

Dedicated cycle paths and footpaths, or shared paths where there is insufficient space

Stormwater improvements to reduce pollution from the road flowing into local streams

Relocation and undergrounding of main utility services (gas, water, telephone and electricity)

Construction of a new four-lane bridge over the Oteha Stream (Days Bridge)

Street lighting upgrade using energy-efficient LED lanterns

New bus stops with shelters

The upgrade is expected to start in September, once the worst of the winter weather is over, and take about two and a half years to complete.

On the other hand, from what I can tell it might end up being one of the closest streets we have to a complete street that caters for all users. I understand that Cycle Action Auckland have fought hard for dedicated cycling facilities which AT are saying they are providing – although only through shared paths in some places. For a busy road like this mid-block pedestrian crossings are also quite useful providing they’re frequent enough.

If we are widening roads, making the new lanes T3 right from the start is a much better idea than just creating additional general traffic lanes – providing the T3 lanes are monitored of course. This is something I think Auckland Transport should have done for the Tiverton/Wolverton upgrade too. For this particular road bus only lanes would likely have been overkill as even with the new network, there won’t be that many buses using it. An idea of what the layout will be is below:

There are a number of before and after images on the AT website however they are quite small and hard to see the details of so I’ve not included them in this post.

Overall I do find the timing of this announcement quite odd as construction is still months away. We’ve seen the NZTA stealing the limelight recently with funding announcements for local road projects. Perhaps this is a case of Auckland Transport trying to announce the project before the NZTA does. Also worth noting is that this is a project we did list in the list of road projects that would still happen even if the CFN was adopted immediately.

“I’d privatise all the schools, all the hospitals and all the roads,” he told the conference.

Now obviously we’re not in the habit of talking about schools or hospitals (unless it’s about how to get to them) but roads are something on our list. Now in reality I can’t see it happening here – at least any time soon – but it raises the interesting question of what would happen if we were to privatise roads? This post is really just a thought exercise as to some of the impacts of doing so.

I suspect that if we were ever privatise the roads the impact would how we get around and our views on transport would change dramatically. There would be some overall impacts across the entire network but also more local impacts due to there likely needing to be different forms of privatisation.

The key impact would be across the entire network and the true cost of operating, maintaining and building roads would become much clearer regardless of how that’s passed on to the public. A better understanding of just how much roads cost, especially if charged for through forms of road pricing would lead to changes in how people travel. People would likely reduce the amount of driving they do in favour of more walking, cycling and PT use.

Private road owners would also likely seek to reduce their maintenance costs while users of lighter vehicles would likely demand that costs are more fairly distributed to those that do the most damage. That in itself could have large impacts. It would likely see the vehicle fleet get smaller and lighter over time i.e. less people would be driving around in large SUVs unless they absolutely need too (or want too). Truckies would be even harder hit. Due to their weight, trucks cause substantially more damage to road surfaces and so would likely be charged substantially more than other vehicles which in itself would have far reaching impacts by pushing up delivery costs. Those increased costs would of course be passed on to businesses and ultimately consumers.

Perhaps one of the areas most impacted would be in road construction. In short it would kill it dead. Most transport projects simply don’t make sense financially and the toll road troubles in Australia are proof of this. Traffic volumes often don’t stack up and most projects are only able to be justified based on the benefits to the wider economy from improved travel times. Faced with paying for a journey in time through congestion or paying a monetary cost to avoid congestion, many choose the former. What all of this means is that road construction would dry up almost immediately and the costs would shift to making the best use of the infrastructure that exists. That could have some negative consequences as there might be little attention paid to improving roads through projects like this. The flip side of this is that the private road owners would likely become liable for road safety and therefore be a push to improve crash black spots.

Regardless of whether privatising roads is a good or a bad thing, one thing that isn’t so clear is just how it could be done. The real benefit from roads comes from the fact they are an extensive network. Very few trips begin and end on the same road and a trip might commonly involve travelling on quieter residential streets, arterial roads and motorways. Each of those would present vastly different opportunities for privatisation.

Motorways

Motorways would probably be the easiest roads to privatise due to the fact they have limited access and all journeys that use a motorway begin and end somewhere else. Motorways also carry large amounts of traffic each day. This is also why groups like the NZCID who have been pushing for the council/govt to find additional ways to fund ever more and larger transport projects have suggested charging for access to the motorways. If we were to privatise roads there would likely be a big temptation to do the easiest ones first and so motorways would be at the top of the agenda. The problem with that though is that it would likely have a huge impact on but still publicly owned roads.

Residential streets

The next easiest set of roads to privatise would actually be quiet suburban streets, particularly those post 1950’s suburbs full of cul-de-sacs. There we would probably do something similar to what is likely to happen later this year in the small sprawly village of Long Grove (north of Chicago). They are looking to privatise many of their currently public suburban roads because it simply can’t afford to maintain them due to their pyramid scheme like system of how roads were funded where the money to pay for them was only raised through development contributions which dried up as a result of the GFC. They are simply going to turn over the ownership of the roads to the owners of the houses on the street and leave it up to them to maintain.

Some typical post 1950’s street patterns

That could put big strains on neighbourly relations in many places as people work out who will pay for what i.e. does everyone on a street pay equally or do those at the end of the street pay more? In some parts of Auckland there could be interesting changes in the stance taking on intensification. More people living on a street means more people to share the cost of a road with and so some of the suburbs that were most opposed to intensification in the Unitary Plan discussions might quickly change their mind. Going further some residential neighbourhoods might start imposing restrictions on vehicle use in their streets – particularly truck movements – in a bid to lessen the damage vehicles do to the roads. Gated communities might also become more common to stop others from passing through.

On the positive side these communities are likely to become much more pedestrian and cycle friendly as those two modes cause much less wear and tear on roads which equates to less maintenance.

Arterials

Privatising arterial roads are likely to be the hardest to do because not only do they serve a movement function but they serve a place one too, people live, work and play along arterials. To be honest I don’t even know how you could privatise them as due to their function they can’t just be turned over to locals to maintain but their connected nature means they would be prohibitively expensive to charge for. Who would really want the cost and hassle of owning them?

Overall I don’t think the idea of privatising roads is necessarily a bad one from an ideological perspective and doing so would certainly change how we use roads, including what modes we use but overall it simply isn’t practical. Roads are such a key part of our everyday life that changing our relationship with them – however flawed it currently is – would have radical and far reaching consequences for society, probably far more so than the privatising of many other government functions. As such I would suggest the likelihood of it happening is very very low. Far more likely and practical would be the introduction of proper road pricing.

He either means that they aren’t currently up to scratch as walking routes or more likely based on the tone of the tweet above (and from others who were there) he was meaning that they shouldn’t be walking environments. This is seriously concerning.

Here’s map from AT of all of the arterial and strategic routes in the city and there’s a lot of roads that we apparently shouldn’t be walking on.

Of course many of those arterial roads also have town centres on them, places we want locals walking to and around.

One possible explanation for this comment may come from the general approach to “roads” at AT as revealed in their new Draft ATCOP. While I haven’t been able to get through much of the 1,000 pages yet, in chapter 7 this is how they explain the road hierarchy:

“Arterials have an important strategic movement function and focus. Collectors and Local Streets have a combined movement/access function. Lanes/Service Lanes and Shared Zones/Spaces have an access/place emphasis.”

It’s hard to know how to comment on this since it is so far from a progressive understanding of streets.

There was also this tweet from Vernon but as he points out, it’s very concerning that the CEO of Auckland Transport would mix up motorways and arterials

@BenRoss_AKL He just resiled from that and said that by arterials he meant motorways. Seems an unlikely confusion of language #sceptical

Back in November it was announced that Auckland Transport wanted to ‘upgrade’ Lincoln Rd. A road I travel on regularly and one that I consider the most soul destroying in all of Auckland. AT have had their proposal open to consultation and public feedback however that is closing today so if you want to have a say about it you need to get on with a submission quickly. Back in November I wrote:

It’s a road that doesn’t seem to do anything well. It’s a road that is quite wide with a minimum of five lanes (two each way and a full painted median), the major intersections are massive blowing the road out even wider to cater for turning in all directions including slip lanes yet can also get horribly congested, particularly for people heading towards the motorway – which the NZTA are currently upgrading into an absolute monstrosity. On top of that it has poor pedestrian amenity, no cycling amenity and the only bit of bus amenity being a small section northbound at the intersection with Triangle Rd/Central Park Dr to give buses a slight head start.

AT say the road carries about 42,000 vehicles per day and a poor safety record with 446 crashes reported between 2008 and 2012, over a third of which were from drivers exiting driveways or side roads failing to give way. The road has also been listed in various documents over the years as needing to be an RTN in the future as part of the primary route connecting the North Shore to West Auckland. The area surrounding the road is also home to around 8,500 residents, 9,000 jobs, a primary school and the Waitakere Hospital.

While I agree that the road seriously needs something done to it and definitely needs improved bus and cycling facilities, what is proposed feels like a massive amount of overkill while also not going far enough.

The upgrade seeks to

widen Lincoln Road to provide an additional bus and high occupancy vehicle (transit) lane on each side of the road to increase capacity and improve pasenger travel times.

build a solid raised and planted median to replace the existing painted median to improve vehicle and pedestrian safety

install shared paths for pedestrians and cyclists on both sides of the road

implement stormwater treatments to minimise surface flooding

relocate and upgrade existing utility services

integrate with the NZ Transport Agency’s current motorway interchange upgrade.

Here’s what the mid-block is meant to look like.

The biggest problems I have is that despite all of the widening that is proposed, buses still won’t even get their own dedicated lane despite the road being designated for a long time as an RTN route. On the sides of the road the shared path is a poor compromise to having proper walking and cycling facilities. If AT are going to the extent of widening the road then they should be doing it properly. Further according to CAA, the width of the proposed paths don’t even meet AT’s own proposed guidelines. Lastly the changes stop at Pomaria Rd meaning that south of there buses will be forced to squeeze back in with other traffic and cyclists are forced back on to the road with tens of thousands of vehicles. Lastly the intersections are a horrendous mess blowing out to over 9 lanes wide once again in a bid to try and cater for every traffic movement with its own lane.

Auckland Transport is proposing to widen Lincoln Rd – something that in my opinion is probably already Auckland’s most soul destroying street, particularly from a land use perspective. Every time I travel down there (which is frequently as I live not far from it) it always reminds me of the worst aspects of auto-dependency. Even the recently built ASB regional centre promotes auto-dependency by not only having a drive through ATM but also drive through banking.

It’s a road that doesn’t seem to do anything well. It’s a road that is quite wide with a minimum of five lanes (two each way and a full painted median), the major intersections are massive blowing the road out even wider to cater for turning in all directions including slip lanes yet can also get horribly congested, particularly for people heading towards the motorway – which the NZTA are currently upgrading into an absolute monstrosity. On top of that it has poor pedestrian amenity, no cycling amenity and the only bit of bus amenity being a small section northbound at the intersection with Triangle Rd/Central Park Dr to give buses a slight head start.

AT say the road carries about 42,000 vehicles per day and a poor safety record with 446 crashes reported between 2008 and 2012, over a third of which were from drivers exiting driveways or side roads failing to give way. The road has also been listed in various documents over the years as needing to be an RTN in the future as part of the primary route connecting the North Shore to West Auckland. The area surrounding the road is also home to around 8,500 residents, 9,000 jobs, a primary school and the Waitakere Hospital.

It’s the northern section which is the worst and that is the part AT are proposing to upgrade with the plans being to

The upgrade seeks to

widen Lincoln Road to provide an additional bus and high occupancy vehicle (transit) lane on each side of the road to increase capacity and improve pasenger travel times.

build a solid raised and planted median to replace the existing painted median to improve vehicle and pedestrian safety

install shared paths for pedestrians and cyclists on both sides of the road

implement stormwater treatments to minimise surface flooding

relocate and upgrade existing utility services

integrate with the NZ Transport Agency’s current motorway interchange upgrade.

There are some seriously big cop-outs there, a transit lane (because there aren’t already enough lanes for private vehicles to use) and shared paths that will pit pedestrians against cyclists (although the road is so horrible that very few people walk anyway). Here is what the typical mid-block cross section is meant to look like.

However while the mid-block may be 7 lanes wide (including median) the major intersections of Universal Dr and Triangle Rd/Central Park Dr blow out to over 9 lanes in width in a bid to cater for every kind of vehicle movement its own lane

And here is a video (from which the image above has been taken) showing the works planned

There is some more detail about some of the features on the AT website and they say the that construction isn’t planned to start until 2018. Here is the timeline.

I recently got back an OIA request from the Ministry of Transport and one of the documents in it was a report on Auckland’s arterial roads. The report is dated December 2012 and the intent was to consider whether significant investment in arterial roads should be the next transport priority after the completion of the Western Ring Route and rail electrification. It’s pretty clear to me that this has come about as an exercise to find ways to avoid agreeing to the City Rail Link however I do think it was probably a worthwhile to do this piece of work anyway. Here is the intro where they also seem suggest that the motorway network is almost complete, not that it really matters to them as the goal posts just get shifted when needed.

The report then goes on to talk about how important Auckland’s arterial roads are for both freight and public transport. General traffic and freight volumes on many on the cities arterial roads are in some cases higher than some of the state highways in Wellington or Christchurch. If these roads were state highways, their volumes mean that many would fall into what the NZTA would class as the most important roads in the country. On the PT side they note that while about half of all bus passenger km’s occur on the arterial network despite it only making up about 4% of the roading network. They also once again make reference to the CRL:

Auckland’s regional arterial network, along with the Northern Busway, will need to provide the bulk of the capacity for future public transport growth, even if the City Rail Link is built

It would be helpful if they quantified the statement a bit as the City Centre Future Access Study showed that even with the integrated CRL and surface bus improvements, that by 2041 access to the city centre would increase by a greater amount on the rail network than the bus network (just). We also know that this is despite their being problems with the modelling including the MoT themselves suggesting it is underestimating rail trips.

Now sure they could be talking about the growth across the entire region however the previous paragraphs suggest they are just thinking about the city centre. It also goes to show just how insular and focused on stopping the CRL the MoT had been.

Moving on the report actually manages to acknowledge that roads just aren’t about moving as many people as possible but that in many situations – like in town centres – they also serve a critical place function and that a balance needs to be struck between the two.

The most interesting part of the report is the section on Congestion. They note that between 2001 and 2010 the city’s population grew by 250,000 people and that they would expect that to have caused increased congestion but ….. they haven’t seen that in the numbers, especially on the arterial networks in on the isthmus.

Right so congestion has actually improved. You can bet that wasn’t modelled into the assumptions of the various roading projects currently under way that are justified on the basis easing congestion. Despite this, the report suggests that there is likely to be a need for more investment going forward to cater for future population growth. It says that due to the significant impact these roads have not just on Auckland but the national economy that there is likely to be justification for the government providing a higher level of funding for these projects compared to the traditional method of using funding assistance rates. It even suggests that one possible way to get additional funding for big arterial road projects (like AMETI or the East-West Link) is to change the designation on them to become a State Highway therefore allowing the NZTA to pay for them fully – although this seems to be a last resort option.

Lastly it is the conclusion that provides perhaps the key point that should be taken away from this report. It suggests that giving greater priority to public transport and freight along arterials are where the most potential gains are. I have suggested in the past that we should perhaps be considering freight lanes and of course we fully support more bus priority.

Overall I think this report is quite useful to the debate despite seemingly being done as a way to see if they could use this as justification for attacking the CRL. The report shows that our arterial roads are very important for a number of reasons/modes and that over the last few years that congestion has generally improved. Most importantly for this blog is the suggestion that improved bus priority should be a priority.

Speaking of bus priority, it appears Auckland Transport will go through a whole electoral term without installing a single metre of new bus lane. Perhaps the PT guys at Auckland Transport need to be taking this report to their roading colleagues to start demanding some bus lanes.

Hundreds of homes are in the firing line of a new arterial road for South Auckland – of which the first section alone is costed at almost $250 million.

Auckland Transport says about 260 properties, many of them along Redoubt Rd above Manukau, are in the path of the first stage of what it ultimately envisages as a 32km eastern bypass of the Southern Motorway to Drury.

The council organisation revealed last night a cost estimate of $246 million for the 9.2km section from Manukau and Flat Bush to Alfriston east of Manurewa, parallel with Mill Rd – including $66 million for property purchases – although it has yet to hazard a price for the full project.

Only $82 million is allocated for the next 10 years, and the project could take twice that time to complete.

But it intends seeking a route designation for the first section from the council’s planners by the end of next month, and says it is powerless to stop landowners from building new homes until then.

The plan has horrified residents of the historic Redoubt Ridge, through which Auckland Transport intends carving a road corridor up to 30m wide, past a remodelled junction with a widened Murphys Rd running from Flat Bush.

At a high level there seems to be some logic in the project – providing an eastern alternative to the Southern Motorway, as shown in the Auckland Plan transport project map:However, as always a lot comes down to the details of project like these – particularly in terms of what kind of corridor upgrade we’re going to get for the massive quarter of a billion dollars proposed. Checking out the proposed cross-sections on Auckland Transport’s website I can’t say I’m particularly impressed as what’s proposed looks like a defacto motorway with no provision for public transport, rather than a true multi-modal corridor which will support high quality development around it in the future. For example:A proposed cross-section of Murphys Road, which connects the corridor with Flat Bush, is even more bizarre:What on earth is the point of wasting 8.2 metres of road width with a giant median strip? It’s not like this road is going to be upgraded to four lanes each way at some point in the future utilising the median strip (at least I hope not). The impact of the road on the bush in this section is highlighted in the Herald article as one area that’s annoying the locals:

Redoubt Rd resident Raewyn Roberts, spokeswoman for an action committee to fight the proposal, yesterday called on Auckland Transport to avoid destroying what remained of a valuable ecological corridor from Murphys Bush to Totara Park and beyond.

Ms Roberts points to the design of the project as a “massive dual carriageway”:

“It’s appalling,” she said. “This is a mega, mega project – they have this massive dual carriageway which will come roaring up from the old Manukau City centre, wipe out the ridge, then sweep down Mill Rd.”

While a certain amount of “moaning locals” seems inevitable with most transport projects I think what’s horrifying people most of all in terms of this project is the vast over-design we’re seeing. A southern motorway bypass needs to be effective at shifting quite a lot of traffic, yes, but whether it needs to be designed for 80 kph average speeds (which is what the design looks like) with enormously wide medians is quite another matter. I think a scaled back project would not only be more likely to gain public acceptance, but it might also cost a hell of a lot less than the $250 million the current monstrosity is budgeted to cost.

City engineers have turned our downtowns into places that are easy to get to but not worth arriving at. – Jeff Speck, Walkable City

A few weeks back I prepared a cross section of the cbd that revealed an interesting land value gap that seemed to correspond to the disurban environment caused by the mini-motorways of Hobson and Nelson Street. In an upcoming post I will look more closely at these streets, in particular their potential for redevelopment, but for now I wanted to compile some background material on the history of one-ways.

Land value gap. Auckland CBD.

Understanding one-ways first starts with the design paradigm that required them. One of the few studies on the subject, “Downtown Streets: Are We Strangling Ourselves On One-way Networks?”, by Walker, Kulash and MacHugh, sets the stage:

For many years, traffic engineers were mandated to “move as much traffic as possible, quickly as possible,” often resulting in degradation of movement for other modes of travel. The unequivocal movement of the motor vehicle through a downtown network was of paramount concern; all other modes of travel took a back seat. Effectiveness of the network was measured by the amount of delay a motorist would encounter on a given street segment or intersection during either the morning or afternoon peak hours.

The authors document the typical transition of American downtowns beginning with the ‘pre-Freeway era’, where streets served a multitude of users and modes and most of the city’s cultural, social and civic activities took place in the historic centre. During this time most of the workers lived within a short distance to work as well (think Auckland streetcar suburbs).

Looking south along the west side of Hobson Street from Fanshawe Street. ( ‘Sir George Grey Special Collections, Auckland Libraries, 4-2052’)

The ‘Freeway Proliferation Era’ encouraged city workers to move farther from their work. “As downtown workers began to seek out less expensive housing in the suburbs, the mode balance on downtown roadways that had existed for years began to move toward facilitating the speedy entrance and exodus of commuters. Downtown streets began to be converted to one-way travel to facilitate this expedient movement into the city in the morning and out in the afternoon.” Below is an example of the technique used to accommodate traffic into and sometimes through a cbd/downtown.

The Post-Freeway Era reached its peak in the 1980s, when corporate offices chose to locate in suburban edge settings. In addition to the one-ways, increasing traffic also gobbled up surface and ground floor real estate in the form of parking which contributed to “blighted, empty streets and boarded-up storefronts, devoid of life after 6 pm.”

Multiple-lane, high speed, one-ways. Land use responds with the highest value: parking.

Finally, the Reemerging Era is where we are today with an increase interest in both residential and business activities locating in traditional city centres. This urban renaissance has lead to a proliferation of one-way re-conversions beginning in earnest in 1990 according to student researcher Meagan Baco.

As urban observer Alan Ehrenhalt notes, in the Return of the Two way Street, cities across America are coming to the conclusion that one-ways should go as documented in this story from Vancouver, Washington:

In the midst of a severe recession, Main Street in Vancouver seemed to come back to life almost overnight. Within a few weeks, the entire business community was celebrating. “We have twice as many people going by as they did before,” one of the employees at an antique store told a local reporter. The chairman of the Vancouver Downtown Association, Lee Coulthard, sounded more excited than almost anyone else. “It’s like, wow,” he exclaimed, “why did it take us so long to figure this out?” A year later, the success of the project is even more apparent. Twice as many cars drive down Main Street every day, without traffic jams or serious congestion. The merchants are still happy. “One-way streets should not be allowed in prime downtown retail areas,” says Rebecca Ocken, executive director of Vancouver’s Downtown Association. “We’ve proven that.”

In addition to Vancouver, Washington, ‘hundreds’ of North American cities have already made one-way conversions, including: Baton Rouge, Berkeley, Dallas, Green Bay, Portland, Sacremento, San Francisco, San Jose and Miami. The success of these efforts are increasingly being documented, like this story from Canada:

“It was somewhat controversial at first, but I would say now that, without exaggeration, people are 90% in favour,” said Brian McMullan, the city’s ebullient young mayor. A prominent local businessman came up to me the other day and said, ‘I didn’t support it from the start, but this is the best thing you’ve ever done.’ ”

This brief post does not address the traffic and street design dynamics of one-ways that make them so dangerous for pedestrians and repulsive to urban life. Instead, I thought it would be best to document how common the practice of retrofitting has become and where it sits in a historical context. Taking a different look at street design, mobility and accessibility (Link v Place) questions the entire premise of our modern transportation planning (What’s the point). It is increasingly becoming evident that designing our city, streets and neighbourhoods for people (as opposed to cars) provides significant value and resiliency.

From the first report mentioned above I recreated an interesting diagram that depicted the premise that there is a “livability” dividend that can be realised if we are prepared to sacrifice a few seconds of time from a vehicular trip. Turning one-ways back to two, like shared spaces, signal priority for pedestrians, and providing for transit and cycling is increasingly being seen as a “no-brainer” for cities intent on remaining relevant in the 21st century.